As long as your kid can pass a test at the end of the year, I don’t give a fuck.
Equal protection.
No. I’ve been complaining that federal money is being used to lie to kids.
I’m not advocating for elected officials setting curriculums. That’s exactly what I’m complaining about.
This is a little disingenuous. I never said I wanted to bring SCOTUS into anything, I only answered a question about how I woud rule IF they were.
The violation lies not in what they are taught but in what they are not taught. I haven’t seemed to make myself clear on this but what I’m objecting to is parents withholding an education from their kids. If you teach your kid that 2+2=5 then the violation is not in that particular instruction but in that the parent is preventing the kid from learning how to do arithemetic.
Er…how I would want THEM to rule…I’m not on the bench.
This is my position exactly. Just make sure the kids can pass the tests. You can tell them that “evilution” is false but at least make sure they know what it *is.
Biggotry somtimes becomes endemic and even institutionalized.
Please elaborate. The equal protection clause certainly would not, for example, forbid the states from deciding to cease funding education altogether.
The only thing the equal protection clause demands is that whatever educational system state and local government puts into place does not impermissibly discriminate based on certain distinctions (most notably, race). It in no way creates a generalized federal “right to education.”
So again, I’d be interested to hear your reasoning leading to such a right existing at the federal level.
Bricker’s hypothetical would be an example of class discrimination.
I’m confused then. If elected officials don’t set the curriculum, who would set it? Appointed officials? Appointed by whom? They woudl have to be appointed by elected officials, so what’s the difference?
There is **nothing **disingenuous about it. You made a statement about the SCotUS. Whether or not that statement was in response to my post is irrelevant. I was simply responding to your statement. If you want to withdraw your statement, go ahead, I will then withdraw my response.
For Christ’s sake, will people please stop putting vital information in Quote boxes? You know that it will be stripped when someone wants to reply.
*RCW 28A.225.010 (4)
A. The 11 required subjects are reading, writing, spelling, language, math, science, social studies, history, health, occupational education, and art and music appreciation.
B. These do not have to be taught separately. A unit study on frogs could include reading, writing, spelling, science, math, art and occupational education.*
What exactly is included in the subject of health in the US? In the UK, health education includes sex education (so it’s probably a good job we don’t do unit studies on frogs).
Which is nice and all, though it’s inaccurate to suggest the equal protection clause forbids all distinctions based on socioeconomic background.
But that wasn’t what you claimed, and it’s really a hijack from the thread topic. You claimed a generalized federal right to education.
Specifically, you wrote:
And later on, you wrote:
It’s abundantly clear that you aren’t talking about school funding. You’re talking about curriculum choice. You’re claiming a federal right to have a basic education.
So again, I’m asking you upon what basis you find such a right at the federal level.
I’m claiming it in a negative sense. I’m saying that parents do not have a right to prevent their kids from getting an education and that if tax money is going to be used then all kids have a 14th amendment right to the same quality of education.
Do you think that parents have a right to kep their children illiterate?
Appointed according to certain criteria. It’s not perfect, I suppose but at least an empirical test can be imposed on the factual accuracy of curriculum.
You broght SCOTUS into this, not me. I was responding to a hypothetical about IF. Don’t try to backdoor me with an implication that I invited SCOTUS into the conversation.
There are several problems with this analysis.
The first is the absence of state action. The 14th amendment, like all of the Constitution, only constrains the actions of government, not individuals. Along similar lines, the mods here on the SDMB can censor reading materials to their hearts content without running a foul of the first amendment.
The second is in your continued reliance on equal protection when equal protection isn’t really an issue. If a state adopts a dumb curriculum, it affects all students. Everyone gets an equally bad education.
The third is your notion that the 14th amendment has anything to do with education at all. Where do you get this, other than you own ass? The 14th may forbid racial and gender discrimination in education, but doesn’t say a goddamned thing about the substance of education. Upon what grounds do you claim otherwise?
Those are the big-ticket objections. There are more, but let’s deal with these first.
I do not think the federal constitution forbids parents keeping their children illiterate, nor am I aware of any federal statute that would forbid as much. Thus, I do not think that such an action violates anyone’s federal rights.
So what if I brought it up? Jesus H. Christ, this is just silly. Of course I invited SCotUS into the discussion. You then responded about SCotUS. BFD. If you want to pretend that you didn’t, that’s fine with me. Everyone who reads this thread can see as plain as day that you did. That part of the discussion, about the SCotUS and “truth”, is really not of interest to me anyway.
Am I allowed to own a slave?
During Prohibition, would I have been allowed to drink?
If I were twelve, would I be allowed to vote?
The Constitution constrains both individuals and governments.
No, but not because of the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment prohibits government from recognizing slavery as an institution, and enforcing legal rights thereto. It does not constrain individuals.
If you were to try to own a slave, you would be tried and convicted under ordinary penal law, not under the 13th amendment.
Not because of the 18th amendment. The 18th amendment established a policy (alcohol prohibited) and then authorizes Congress to enforce that policy. The amendment itself doesn’t affect individuals. No one is prosecuted under the 18th amendment directly. During Prohibition, you would have been tried under the Volstead Act.
I also note that your premise is technically incorrect. People could drink during Prohibition. What was illegal was the manufacture, importation or sale of alcohol. So if, say, you had wine purchased prior to Prohibition, you could drink it in the comfort of your own home without running afoul of the law.
That depends on the law of your state. The 26th amendment only prevents the states from setting their voting ages higher than 18. It does not prevent them from setting a lower age.
Indeed, there was a thread awhile back involving a California proposal to give minors over the age of 14 a “partial vote.” If that proposal had become law, there is nothing in Constitution that would prevent it.
Even if I cede this point (your Prohibition example isn’t terrible), it doesn’t change the fact that the provisions we’re talking about in this thread only apply to government, and thus your examples are totally irrelevant.
The Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment require state action before they are triggered. They do not constrain individuals.
carimwc, unless there’s a common source, this may be lifted right out of the Mars & Venus books; the author of this critique quotes from it.
Ugh.
First post in the Pit: bad, bad, bad. Will say hi properly later.